On On-line public spaces
There was an interesting article this week in Tim O'Reilly's blog, called 'Levels of the Game: The Hierarchy of Web 2.0 Applications.'
O'Reilly is the one who wrote a great expose on Web 2.0, What is Web 2.0.
In this article he mentions 4 levels of "Web 2.0-ness":
Level 3: "The application could ONLY exist on the net, and draws its essential power from the network and the connections it makes possible between people or applications. ... In the hierarchy of web 2.0 applications, the highest level is to embrace the network, to understand what creates network effects, and then to harness them in everything you do."
- O'Reilly also quotes Google CEO Eric Schmidt's advice, "Don't fight the internet."
Level 2: "the application gains remarkable power by leveraging an online community"
Level 1: "The application can and does exist successfully offline, but it gains additional features by being online."
Level 0: "The application has primarily taken hold online, but it would work just as well offline if you had all the data in a local cache."
Quoting O'Rielly:
"What I found most insightful in Fallows' piece was the idea that Web 2.0 is ultimately based on trust. That's a nice grace note when we think about architectures of participation. They do ultimately rely on trust."
I find this very important as well, with increased reliance on more participation we are exposing ourselves to the basics of human interraction and that is held up together by trust. I think this is a very good contribution of Web 2.0 to society, that it is bringing about trust and encouraging it in people by engaging them in on-line participation. Trust is something that is often missing from our highly individualistic societies (note to self: review urban sprawl article, relates to development of individualism and isolation).
Very interesting: the combination of philosophy, anthropology and new technologies (e.g. Web 2.0)!!
O'Reilly is the one who wrote a great expose on Web 2.0, What is Web 2.0.
In this article he mentions 4 levels of "Web 2.0-ness":
Level 3: "The application could ONLY exist on the net, and draws its essential power from the network and the connections it makes possible between people or applications. ... In the hierarchy of web 2.0 applications, the highest level is to embrace the network, to understand what creates network effects, and then to harness them in everything you do."
- O'Reilly also quotes Google CEO Eric Schmidt's advice, "Don't fight the internet."
Level 2: "the application gains remarkable power by leveraging an online community"
Level 1: "The application can and does exist successfully offline, but it gains additional features by being online."
Level 0: "The application has primarily taken hold online, but it would work just as well offline if you had all the data in a local cache."
Quoting O'Rielly:
"What I found most insightful in Fallows' piece was the idea that Web 2.0 is ultimately based on trust. That's a nice grace note when we think about architectures of participation. They do ultimately rely on trust."
I find this very important as well, with increased reliance on more participation we are exposing ourselves to the basics of human interraction and that is held up together by trust. I think this is a very good contribution of Web 2.0 to society, that it is bringing about trust and encouraging it in people by engaging them in on-line participation. Trust is something that is often missing from our highly individualistic societies (note to self: review urban sprawl article, relates to development of individualism and isolation).
Very interesting: the combination of philosophy, anthropology and new technologies (e.g. Web 2.0)!!
posted by chaika at 10:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home